Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3
 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:57:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4l9pi$3n5d$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> <v4apjs$19rnv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me> <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me> <v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dhf5$1tsdf$2@dont-email.me> <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me> <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me> <v4dn5u$3qbnd$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dop4$22o4a$2@dont-email.me> <v4dq07$3qbnc$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dqq0$2353n$1@dont-email.me> <v4el9m$3rsd6$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4f3ec$2akmh$2@dont-email.me> <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kh6a$3hugj$4@dont-email.me> <v4kial$2219$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v4kjkr$3iid3$2@dont-email.me> <v4klb4$2219$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v4ko32$3jfm0$1@dont-email.me> <v4l7aq$3n5c$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4l8pg$3m8b0$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 23:57:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="122029"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4l8pg$3m8b0$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6680
Lines: 130

On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H 
>>>>>>>>> computes
>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input
>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and
>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you
>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, 
>>>>>
>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE*
>>>>
>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove 
>>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not
>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D).
>>
>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H 
>> isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the 
>> Halting Problem.
>>
> 
> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that
> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what
> you think that this input should mean.
> 

And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs 
is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed 
to decide on. PERIOD.

IF H(D,D) doesn't mean the behavior of D(D), then you built D wrong, as 
its requirements stated it was to use the decider to decide on this 
input programs behavior for this input.

So, it means the behavior of D(D) or you are a LIAR and nothing you have 
said means anything

>>>
>>> Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption
>>> that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified?
>>
>> I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider.
>>
>>
>> I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years.
>>
>> I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out 
>> that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting 
>> the definition of a Halt Decider.
>>
>>>
>>>>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that
>>>>> question will increase your understanding or you already know
>>>>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has 
>>>> NOTHING to do with the problem, 
>>>
>>> It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete
>>> instance of the problem.
>>
>> Nope, You just admitted it doesn't.
>>
>> Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program 
>> described by the input. 
> 
> I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn
> or ignorant to comprehend this.

YOU CAN'T "PROVE" a defintion to means something it doesn't mean

That is just admitting to trying to lie.

You are just proving you don't understand the basics of logic,

> 
>> By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is supposed to be asking H 
>> to decide on D(D).
>>
> 
> Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even
> understand how it could be possible does not change you
> religious conviction that I must be wrong.

And thus you are just admitting that you have been lying, since you said 
that D was built exactly to the Linz template.

How do you explain it otherwise?

> 
>> If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been 
>> working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it.
>>
> 
> When I correct false assumptions that others have had
> about the halting problem that does not mean that I am
> not working on the halting problem.

You have not "corrected a false assumption", you have just admitted to 
LYING about following requirements.

It seems the only "False Assumption" was that we could beleive anything 
you asaid.

> 
> When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical
> that does not mean that they were not working on the shape
> of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth.
>